health evidence review commission (herc) …...jan 08, 2015 · coverage guidance: ablation for...

1

HEALTH EVIDENCE REVIEW COMMISSION (HERC)

COVERAGE GUIDANCE: ABLATION FOR ATRIAL FIBRILLATION

Approved 1/8/2015

HERC COVERAGE GUIDANCE

AV node ablation is recommended for coverage only in persons with inadequate ventricular rate control resulting in symptoms, left ventricular systolic dysfunction or substantial risk of left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Coverage is recommended only when pharmacological therapy for rate control is ineffective or not tolerated (weak recommendation)

Transcatheter pulmonary vein isolation is recommended for coverage for those who remain symptomatic from atrial fibrillation despite rate control medications and antiarrhythmic medications (strong recommendation) Surgical ablation (pulmonary vein isolation or Maze procedure) for atrial fibrillation is recommended for coverage at the time of other cardiac surgery for patients who remain symptomatic despite rate control medications (weak recommendation).

Note: Definitions for strength of recommendation are provided in Appendix A GRADE Element

Description

RATIONALE FOR GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT

The HERC selects topics for guideline development or technology assessment based

on the following principles:

Represents a significant burden of disease

Represents important uncertainty with regard to efficacy or harms

Represents important variation or controversy in clinical care

Represents high costs, significant economic impact

Topic is of high public interest

Coverage guidance development follows to translate the evidence review to a policy

decision. Coverage guidance may be based on an evidence-based guideline developed

by the Evidence-based Guideline Subcommittee or a health technology assessment

developed by the Heath Technology Assessment Subcommittee. In addition, coverage

guidance may utilize an existing evidence report produced by one of HERC’s trusted

sources, generally within the last three years.

EVIDENCE SOURCES

Al-Khatib, S.M., Allen Lapointe, N., Chatterjee, R., Crowley, M.J., Dupre, M.E., Kong,

D.F., et al. (2013). Treatment of atrial fibrillation. Comparative Effectiveness

Coverage Guidance: Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation Approved 1/8/2015 2

Review 119. (Prepared by the Duke Evidence-based Practice Center under

Contract No. 290-2007-10066-I.) AHRQ Publication No.13-EHC095-EF.

Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Retrieved from

www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm

Chen, H.S., Wen, J.M., Wu, S.N., & Liu, J.P. (2012). Catheter ablation for paroxysmal

and persistent atrial fibrillation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue

4. Art. No.: CD007101. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007101.pub2. Retrieved from

Hashimoto, R.E., Raich, A., Junge, M., & Skelly, A. (2013). Catheter ablation

procedures for supraventricular tachyarrhythmia, including atrial flutter & atrial

fibrillation. Olympia, WA: Washington State Health Care Authority Health

Technology Assessment Program. Retrieved from

http://www.hca.wa.gov/hta/Pages/Forms/HTA_Findings.aspx

January, C.T., Wann, L.S., Alpert, J.S., Calkins, H., Cleveland, Jr, J.C., Cigarroa, J.E.,

et al. (2014). 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients

With Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American

Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm

Society. Circulation, 129. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000041. Retrieved from

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2014/03/27/CIR.0000000000000041.citat

ion

The summary of evidence in this document is derived directly from these evidence

sources, and portions are extracted verbatim.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

Clinical Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a supraventricular tachyarrhythmia characterized by

uncoordinated atrial activation with consequent deterioration of mechanical function.

Different systems have been proposed to classify AF. Although the type of AF can

change over time, it is often helpful to characterize it at a given moment, as this may

guide treatment. Types of AF include first-detected, paroxysmal (arrhythmia terminates

spontaneously within 7 days), persistent (arrhythmia is sustained beyond 7 days),

longstanding persistent (patients who have been in AF for any period longer than 1 year

when attempts at achieving sinus rhythm are planned or are in progress), and

permanent AF (in which cardioversion has failed or has not been attempted).

It is estimated that more than 2.3 million Americans have AF. The prevalence of AF

increases with age and approaches 8 percent in patients older than 80 years of age. AF

is the most common sustained arrhythmia seen in clinical practice. The impact of AF is

http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm

http://www.hca.wa.gov/hta/Pages/Forms/HTA_Findings.aspx

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2014/03/27/CIR.0000000000000041.citation

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2014/03/27/CIR.0000000000000041.citation


compounded by its known association with significant mortality, morbidity, and health

care costs. Not only is the risk of death in patients with AF twice that of patients without

AF, but AF can result in myocardial ischemia or even infarction, heart failure

exacerbation, and tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy if the ventricular rate is not well

controlled. The most dreaded complication of AF is thromboembolism, especially stroke.

Importantly, when ischemic stroke occurs in patients with AF, it is either fatal or of

moderate to high severity in the majority of patients. The management of AF and its

complications is responsible for almost $16 billion in costs to the U.S. health care

system each year.

Treatment Strategies

Management of AF involves three distinct areas: rate control (treatments to slow the

heart rate to a normal range), rhythm control (treatments to revert the heart rhythm back

to normal), and prevention of thromboembolic events. Whether or not a rhythm-control

strategy is adopted, current treatment guidelines suggest that adequate rate control

should be achieved in all patients with AF to prevent myocardial infarction (if significant

coronary artery disease is present), exacerbation of heart failure, and tachycardia-

induced cardiomyopathy; to alleviate symptoms; and to improve exercise tolerance and

quality of life.

Rate Control

If pharmacological therapy is insufficient for rate control and symptom management or

is associated with side effects, the 2006 ACC/AHA/ESC Guidelines recommend

ablation of the atrioventricular node (AVN) in conjunction with permanent pacemaker

implantation to control heart rate. As the latter involves implantation of an indwelling

device that is not reversible, it is considered a treatment of last resort for patients for

whom initial pharmacotherapy was ineffective.

Another clinical dilemma is whether patients with AF do better with strict or lenient rate

control. In theory, strict control could reduce symptoms and prevent complications.

However, stricter control requires more intensive use of medications, which carry their

own side effects. The 2011 Focused Update on the Management of Patients With Atrial

Fibrillation by the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), the AHA, and

the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) addressed the issue of strict versus lenient rate control

in patients with AF. Specifically, these guidelines emphasized the following Class III

recommendation (evidence and/or general agreement that the procedure/treatment is

not useful/effective and in some cases may be harmful): “Treatment to achieve strict

rate control of heart rate (<80 bpm at rest or <110 bpm during a 6-minute walk) is not

beneficial compared with achieving a resting heart rate <110 bpm in patients with

persistent AF who have stable ventricular function (left ventricular ejection fraction

>0.40) and no or acceptable symptoms related to the arrhythmia.”


Rhythm Control

If patients with AF continue to have significant symptoms despite adequate rate control

through either pharmacological therapy or AVN ablation, then a rhythm-control strategy

(either pharmacological or electrical) is currently recommended. For pharmacological

cardioversion of AF, the 2014 ACC/AHA/ESC Guidelines recommend flecainide,

dofetilide, propafenone, and ibutilide as Class I recommendations, and amiodarone as a

Class IIa recommendation (weight of evidence/opinion is in favor of

usefulness/efficacy). To enhance direct-current cardioversion, the 2014 ACC/AHA/ESC

Guidelines recommend pretreatment with amiodarone, flecainide, ibutilide,

propafenone, or sotalol. For maintenance of sinus rhythm after cardioversion, the 2014

ACC/AHA/ESC Guidelines list different antiarrhythmic medications for different clinical

settings.

In addition to pharmacological and direct-current cardioversion, a number of surgical

interventions are used for rhythm control. Catheter ablation for the treatment of AF, with

pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) being the most commonly used ablation, has evolved

rapidly from a highly experimental procedure to its current status as a commonly

performed procedure that is widely regarded as a clinically useful treatment option for

symptomatic patients with AF in whom medications are not effective or not tolerated.

Several other procedures for the treatment of AF have been investigated. One such

procedure is the surgical Maze procedure, which appears to confer some benefit to

selected patients with AF. Although several studies of rate- and rhythm-control

strategies exist, to date no study has shown that maintaining patients with AF in sinus

rhythm provides a long-term survival benefit. It is also unknown whether the risks and

benefits of different therapies vary by AF type.

Evidence Review

Rate-Control Procedures Versus Drugs or Versus Other Procedures in Patients for

Whom Initial Pharmacotherapy Was Ineffective

Al-Khatib 2013 reports on four RCTs (one good, two fair, and one poor quality) involving

a total of 211 patients that compared the effectiveness of a procedural intervention

versus a primarily pharmacological intervention for rate control of AF. All four studies

recruited patients with permanent AF, (referred to as “resistant chronic” AF in one

study). All studies included at least one treatment arm with radiofrequency ablation of

either the AVN or His bundle in conjunction with pacemaker placement. The comparison

arms included a pharmacological intervention whose main purpose was to control

ventricular heart rate rather than converting the underlying rhythm of AF.


Based on three studies reported in Al-Khatib 2013 (one good, one fair, one poor quality)

involving 211 patients, patients undergoing a procedural intervention had a significantly

lower heart rate at 12 months than those receiving a primarily pharmacological

intervention. This was measured differently in all three studies. In one, the mean heart

rate in the intervention group was 71 ±6 bpm compared to 83 ± 8 bpm in the medication

group (p<0.01). In this study, maximum heart rate did not differ between groups. In the

second study, those in the ablation group had higher minimum (70±9 vs. 39±9 bpm;

p<0.05) and mean (76±7 vs. 71±11 bpm; p<0.05) heart rates than the medication group,

but lower maximum heart rates (117 ± 16 bpm vs. 152 ± 37 bpm; p<0.05). The third

study reported the percent of each group who had either a normal or uncontrolled

ventricular rate; in the ablation group, 100% had a normal ventricular rate (50-90 bpm)

compared to 58% in the medication group. Similarly, none of the ablation group had an

uncontrolled heart rate (>90 bpm at rest or > 130 bpm on exertion), while 42% of the

medication group did. There was no difference by treatment arm in all-cause mortality

(two studies [one good, one fair quality], 201 patients); cardiovascular mortality (one

study [good quality], 102 patients); or exercise capacity (two studies [one good, one fair

quality], 135 patients) (all low strength of evidence). There was insufficient strength of

evidence to support findings for other outcomes, including quality of life.

Rhythm-Control Procedures and Drugs for Maintenance of Sinus Rhythm

Al-Khatib 2013 included 65 studies enrolling 6,739 patients that evaluated procedures

for rhythm control. Of those that specified type of AF, eleven included only patients with

longstanding persistent AF, 17 studies included only patients with paroxysmal AF, and 4

studies included only patients with persistent AF.

Transcatheter PVI versus antiarrhythmic drugs

Al-Khatib 2013 concluded, based on eight RCTs (five good, three fair quality) involving

921 patients, that transcatheter PVI is superior to antiarrhythmic drugs for maintenance

of sinus rhythm over 12 months of follow up in patients with AF (one RCT reported 48

months of follow up). All trials had statistically significant results, as did meta-analysis of

all eight trials (OR 6.51, 95% CI 3.22 to 13.16). This evidence is strongest in younger

patients with little to no structural heart disease and with mild or no enlargement of the

left atrium. Only one trial was limited to patients receiving ablation as first line therapy

(Wazni 2005), while five specifically required failure of at least one AAD to be included

in the study. The Wazni trial included 70 patients who experienced monthly episodes of

symptomatic AF for at least three months, and found that at one year follow up, 63% of

those treated with AADs had at least one recurrence of AF, compared to 13% of those


who received PVI. Another trial included only in Hashimoto 2013 included only patients

with persistent AF (MacDonald 2011), and reported that at final follow up (6 months),

50% of patients in the PVI group were in sinus rhythm while none of the control group

were (no statistical testing done). This latter trial was limited to patients with advanced

heart failure. (Note: This outcome is reported as freedom from recurrence in Hashimoto

2013, but results are similar.)

Al-Khatib 2013 concluded, based on two RCTs (Pappone 2006, Forleo 2009, both good

quality) involving 268 patients, that transcatheter PVI is superior to antiarrhythmic

medications in reducing cardiovascular hospitalizations (moderate strength of

evidence). Both of these trials were also included in Hashimoto 2013. A third study,

Stabile 2006, reported only in Hashimoto 2013, found a lower number of

hospitalizations in the PVI group which did not reach statistical significance. A fourth

RCT, Wazni 2005, reported only in Al-Khatib 2013, found the rate of hospitalization

specifically for AF was higher in the AAD arm (15 of 35) than the PVI arm (3 of 32, p<

0.001) in the first 12 months of follow up.

Chen 2012 reported that only one trial (Stabile 2006) reported all-cause mortality.

There were no statistically significant differences between groups for this outcome. In

this trial, the one death that occurred in the PVI group was from a stroke that occurred

during the procedure and was followed by a brain hemorrhage 9 months later. There

were two deaths in the AAD group (diagnosis not specified).

Al-Khatib 2013 also reported only one study for the outcome of all-cause mortality,

however, it was a different study than was reported by Chen. This study (Oral 2006)

reported one death in the PVI arm at 12 months compared to none in the AAD arm; no

statistical testing was done.

Hashimoto 2013 reported that four RCTs (Jais 2008, Wilbur 2010, Stabile 2006, Oral

2006) reported overall mortality rates (not procedure related) at 9 to 12 months of follow

up. Mortality rate in the PVI arm ranged from 1% to 3%, while in the AAD arm a rate of

3% was reported in two studies. According to Hashimoto, Stabile 2006 was the only

RCT to report mortality in both arms. Two cohort studies included in Hashimoto 2013

did report an increased risk of death in the AAD group at follow up times ranging from 1

to 3 years (Pappone 2003: 6.5% in the PVI group vs. 14.3% in the AAD group, p<

0.001) or at a mean follow up of 69 months (Sonne 2009: 2.1% in the PVI group vs.

16.5% in the AAD group, p = 0.001).

Eight studies evaluated quality of life (QOL) or functional status, three RCTs

reported in all three source reports, two additional RCTs reported in both Hashimoto

2013 and Al-Khatib 2013, two additional RCTs in Hashimoto 2013 only and one cohort

study reported in Al-Khatib 2013 only. In general, there was greater improvement from


baseline in these scores in patients randomized to the PVI arm, compared to the AAD

arm, and in most of these studies, results were statistically significant for at least some

measures.

Harms were reported in eight RCTs, but for the most part, were not statistically

analyzed. Complications reported in each study are summarized in the Table below:

Author N PVI Arm AAD Arm

Krittayaphong 30 1 stroke, 1 groin hematoma AE in 7 patients (47%): GI AE in 6 pts, corneal deposits in 2 pts, hypothyroidism in 2 pts, abnormal LFTs in 2 pts, hyperthyroidism in 1 pt, sinus node dysfunction in 1 pt

Wazni 70 No TE events, no bradycardia, 1 asymptomatic PV stenosis

No TE events, 8.6% bradycardia

Pappone 198 No serious AE Sig AE leading to drug withdrawal in 23 pts,

Oral 146 None None Stabile 137 4.4% major complications

(stroke, phrenic paralysis, pericardial effusion)

1 TIA, 2 cancer, 1 sudden death

Jais 112 2 cardiac tamponade, 2 groin hematomas, 1 PV stenosis requiring stent

1 hyperthyroidism, 2 deaths (unrelated)

Forleo 70 1 groin hematoma 17% sig drug AE (bradycardia, atrial flutter, sinus node dysfunction

Wilber 167 5 major AE (pericardial effusion, pulmonary edema, pneumonia, vascular complication, heart failure)

5 major AE (2 life-threatening arrhythmias, 3 disabling drug intolerance requiring discontinuation)

TE = thromboembolic; PV = pulmonary vein

Cryoablation PVI vs. AAD

One RCT reported in Hashimoto 2013 found that patients randomized to receive

cryoablation had significantly greater freedom from recurrence compared with those

patients randomized to receive AADs alone (69.9% versus 7%, respectively; P < .001).

There was one death (0.6%) in the cryoablation PVI group and none in the AAD group

at 12 months, which was not statistically significant.


Surgical Maze versus standard of care (mitral valve surgery)

Al-Khatib 2013 included seven RCTs (one good, six fair quality) involving 361 patients

for this comparison. Surgical Maze at the time of other cardiac surgery (specifically

mitral valve surgery) is superior to mitral valve surgery alone for maintenance of sinus

rhythm over at least 12 months of followup in patients with persistent AF (OR 5.80,

95% CI 1.79 to 18.81). Six studies reported on all cause mortality; meta-analysis found

an OR of 1.97 (95% CI 0.81 to 4.80) suggesting an increased risk of death with the

Maze procedure, but this did not reach statistical significance.

PVI done at the time of cardiac surgery versus cardiac surgery alone or cardiac surgery

in combination with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) or catheter ablation

Al-Khatib 2013 included eight RCTs (five good, three fair quality) involving 532 patients

for this comparison. Pulmonary vein isolation done at the time of cardiac surgery is

superior to cardiac surgery alone or cardiac surgery in combination with AADs or

catheter ablation for maintenance of sinus rhythm over 12 months of followup in

patients with persistent AF (OR 3.91, 95% CI 1.54 to 9.91). Two studies reported no

difference between groups in all-cause mortality or stroke.

There are insufficient data on the effect of rhythm control with PVI or surgical Maze on

final outcomes, such as all-cause mortality, stroke, heart failure, and left ventricular

ejection fraction, and on the safety and durability of the effectiveness of these

procedures beyond 12 months.

Other comparisons

There are a variety of other comparisons included in Al-Khatib 2013 and Chen 2012,

most of which had a limited number of studies and were considered outside the scope

of this guidance document. These include the following:

Circumferential PVI versus Segmental PVI

Transcatheter PVI with complex fractionated atrial electrogram (CFAE) ablation

versus transcatheter PVI without CFAE ablation

Transcatheter PVI using different types of ablation catheters

Transcatheter PVI with Cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation vs. transcatheter

PVI without CTI ablation

Transcatheter PVI vs transcatheter PVI with ablation sites other than CTI and

CFAE and transcatheter PVI involving all four PVs vs transcatheter PVI involving

arrhythmogenic PVs only


Transcatheter PVI Alone vs transcatheter PVI plus postablation antiarrhythmic

drugs

Left atrial ablation vs. bi-atrial ablation

PVI, circumferential PVI or left atrium ablation vs. ablation plus additional linear

ablation

PV-left atrium junction ablation vs. PV-left atrium junction ablation combined with

CTI ablation

Circumferential PV ablation vs. circumferential PV ablation plus PVI

Superior PV ablation vs. four-PV ablation

Small area isolation vs. large area isolation around PVs in circumferential PV

ablation

CFAE plus PV atrum isolation vs. PV atrum isolation alone

Circumferential PV ablation vs. modified circumferential PV ablation

Arrhythmogenic PVI vs all PVI

[Evidence Source]

Evidence Summary

Ablation of the AV node or bundle of His in patients with AF results in lower heart rate at

12 months than pharmacologic treatment (moderate SOE), although there is no

difference in mortality or exercise capacity (low SOE). Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI)

results in a greater likelihood of maintaining sinus rhythm at 12 months than

pharmacologic treatment (high SOE); most of the evidence for this finding is in patients

with AF who have failed at least one AAD. This procedure (PVI) also results in lower

risk of hospitalization over 12 months (moderate SOE) and improved QOL (moderate

SOE), but the evidence is insufficient to assess the impact of PVI on mortality.

The surgical Maze procedure, when done at the time of other cardiac surgery, results in

a higher likelihood of maintaining sinus rhythm than not performing the Maze (moderate

SOE). Similarly, PVI done at the time of other cardiac surgery results in a higher

likelihood of maintaining sinus rhythm than not performing PVI (high SOE), and no

apparent difference in all-cause mortality or stroke (low SOE).


GRADE-INFORMED FRAMEWORK

The HERC develops recommendations by using the concepts of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment,

Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. GRADE is a transparent and structured process for developing and

presenting evidence and for carrying out the steps involved in developing recommendations. There are four elements that

determine the strength of a recommendation, as listed in the table below. The HERC reviews the evidence and makes an

assessment of each element, which in turn is used to develop the recommendations presented in the coverage guidance

box. Balance between desirable and undesirable effects, and quality of evidence, are derived from the evidence

presented in this document, while estimated relative costs, values and preferences are assessments of the HERC

members.

Indication/ Intervention

Balance between desirable and

undesirable effects

Quality of evidence*

Resource allocation

Variability in values

and preferences

Coverage recommendation

Rationale

Ablation of AV node/bundle of His compared to rate control medications in patients for whom initial pharmacotherapy was ineffective

Lower heart rate, no difference in

mortality/exercise capacity

Moderate/Low based on 1 to 3 poor to good quality studies, depending on the outcome

High High AV node ablation is recommended for coverage only in

symptomatic persons when pharmacological

therapy for rate control is ineffective or not tolerated. (weak

recommendation)

Studies show mixed clinical

significance of a lower heart rate.

In those with persistently

uncontrolled heart rate despite

AADs, AV node ablation is a reasonable

alternative to prevent the

negative consequences of an uncontrolled rate such as MI, exacerbation of

CHF or cardiomyopathy.

Transcatheter PVI vs. AAD

Better maintenance of SR, fewer

High/Moderate, based on 1 to

High Moderate Transcatheter PVI is recommended for

Transcatheter PVI produces


Indication/ Intervention

Balance between desirable and

undesirable effects

Quality of evidence*

Resource allocation

Variability in values

and preferences

Coverage recommendation

Rationale

hospitalizations, better QOL, possibly

lower mortality

8 fair to good quality studies, depending on the outcome

coverage when a rhythm control strategy is desired (strong recommendation)

superior clinical outcomes to

antiarrhythmic drugs alone when a rhythm control

strategy is pursued

Maze procedure Better maintenance of SR; possible (nonsignificant)

increase in mortality

Moderate based on 1

good and six fair quality

studies

Moderate (concurrent with other

cardiac surgery)

Moderate The Maze procedure is recommended for

coverage at the time of other cardiac surgery if

the benefits of maintenance of sinus rhythm are thought to

outweigh the potential risk of increased mortality

(weak recommendation)

Maze may help maintain sinus

rhythm but concerning

nonsignificant increased risk of

mortality

PVI done with other cardiac surgery

Better maintenance of SR

High based on 5 good and 3

fair quality studies

Moderate (concurrent with other

cardiac surgery)

Low PVI is recommended for coverage (weak

recommendation)

PVI may help maintain sinus rhythm without

significant additional risks

SR = sinus rhythm PVI = pulmonary vein isolation AAD = anti-arrhythmic drugs

*The Quality of Evidence rating was assigned by the primary evidence source, not the HERC Subcommittee

Note: GRADE framework elements are described in Appendix A


POLICY LANDSCAPE

Nine quality measures pertaining to atrial fibrillation were identified when searching the

National Quality Measures Clearinghouse; however, none of them referenced ablation.

Choosing Wisely® is part of a multi-year effort of the ABIM Foundation to help

physicians be better stewards of finite health care resources. Originally conceived and

piloted by the National Physicians Alliance through a Putting the Charter into Practice

grant, more than 50 medical specialty organizations, along with Consumer Reports,

have identified a number of tests or procedures commonly used in their field, whose

necessity should be questioned and discussed. Each participating organization was free

to determine how to create its own list, provided that it used a clear methodology and

adhered to the following set of shared guidelines:

Each item should be within the specialty’s purview and control.

The tests and/or interventions should be used frequently and/or carry a

significant cost.

Each recommendation should be supported by generally accepted evidence.

The selection process should be thoroughly documented and publicly available

on request.

One of the organizations that chose to participate in the Choosing Wisely® campaign is

the Heart Rhythm Society. The most recent list created by this organization states the

following:

“Don’t ablate the atrioventricular node in patients with atrial fibrillation

when both symptoms and heart rate are acceptably controlled by well-

tolerated medical therapy.

Atrioventricular node ablation and pacemaker implantation may provide benefit in

some patients when rate and related symptoms cannot be controlled by

medication therapy,(Class IIa, indicated) or when there is concern for possible

tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy (Class IIb, may be considered). However,

according to current professional society clinical guidelines, the risks of AV node

ablation outweigh the benefits among patients with no symptoms and who have

appropriate rate control with well-tolerated medical therapy.”

They cite the 2011 publication of the ACCF/AGA guidelines on the management of

patient with AF as supporting evidence. These guidelines were recently updated (2014),

and are rated fair quality using the MED standard criteria, primarily because study

selection criteria was not specified and the quality of included studies was not

assessed. These guidelines state the following with regard to AV node ablation for rate

control in AF:

http://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov/

http://npalliance.org/

http://www.abimfoundation.org/Initiatives/Putting-the-Charter-Into-Practice-Grants/2009-Grantees.aspx

http://www.abimfoundation.org/Initiatives/Putting-the-Charter-Into-Practice-Grants/2009-Grantees.aspx


Class IIa

3. AV nodal ablation with permanent ventricular pacing is reasonable to control

the heart rate when pharmacological therapy is inadequate and rhythm control is

not achievable. (Level of Evidence: B)

Class III: Harm

1. AV nodal ablation with permanent ventricular pacing should not be performed

to improve rate control without prior attempts to achieve rate control with

medications. (Level of Evidence: C)

For catheter ablation for rhythm control (e.g. PVI), the guidelines state the following:

Class I

1. AF catheter ablation is useful for symptomatic paroxysmal AF refractory or

intolerant to at least 1 class I or III antiarrhythmic medication when a rhythm

control strategy is desired. (Level of Evidence: A)

2. Prior to consideration of AF catheter ablation, assessment of the procedural

risks and outcomes relevant to the individual patient is recommended. (Level of

Evidence: C)

Class IIa

1. AF catheter ablation is reasonable for selected patients with symptomatic

persistent AF refractory or intolerant to at least 1 class I or III antiarrhythmic

medication. (Level of Evidence: A)

2. In patients with recurrent symptomatic paroxysmal AF, catheter ablation is a

reasonable initial rhythm control strategy prior to therapeutic trials of

antiarrhythmic drug therapy, after weighing risks and outcomes of drug and

ablation therapy. (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIb

1. AF catheter ablation may be considered for symptomatic long-standing (>12

months) persistent AF refractory or intolerant to at least 1 class I or III

antiarrhythmic medication, when a rhythm control strategy is desired. (Level of

Evidence: B)

2. AF catheter ablation may be considered prior to initiation of antiarrhythmic drug

therapy with a class I or III antiarrhythmic medication for symptomatic persistent

AF, when a rhythm control strategy is desired. (Level of Evidence: C)

Class III: Harm

1. AF catheter ablation should not be performed in patients who cannot be treated

with anticoagulant therapy during and following the procedure. (Level of

Evidence: C)


2. AF catheter ablation to restore sinus rhythm should not be performed with the

sole intent of obviating the need for anticoagulation. (Level of Evidence: C)

Coverage guidance is prepared by the Health Evidence Review Commission (HERC), HERC staff, and

subcommittee members. The evidence summary is prepared by the Center for Evidence-based Policy at Oregon

Health & Science University (the Center). This document is intended to guide public and private purchasers in

Oregon in making informed decisions about health care services.

The Center is not engaged in rendering any clinical, legal, business or other professional advice. The statements

in this document do not represent official policy positions of the Center. Researchers involved in preparing this

document have no affiliations or financial involvement that conflict with material presented in this document.


Appendix A. GRADE Element Descriptions

Element Description

Balance between

desirable and

undesirable

effects

The larger the difference between the desirable and undesirable effects, the

higher the likelihood that a strong recommendation is warranted. The narrower

the gradient, the higher the likelihood that a weak recommendation is warranted

Quality of

evidence

The higher the quality of evidence, the higher the likelihood that a strong

recommendation is warranted

Resource

allocation

The higher the costs of an intervention—that is, the greater the resources

consumed—the lower the likelihood that a strong recommendation is warranted

Values and

preferences

The more values and preferences vary, or the greater the uncertainty in values

and preferences, the higher the likelihood that a weak recommendation is

warranted

Strong recommendation

In Favor: The subcommittee is confident that the desirable effects of adherence to a recommendation outweigh the undesirable effects, considering the quality of evidence, cost and resource allocation, and values and preferences.

Against: The subcommittee is confident that the undesirable effects of adherence to a recommendation outweigh the desirable effects, considering the quality of evidence, cost and resource allocation, and values and preferences.

Weak recommendation

In Favor: The subcommittee concludes that the desirable effects of adherence to a recommendation probably outweigh the undesirable effects, considering the quality of evidence, cost and resource allocation, and values and preferences, but is not confident.

Against: The subcommittee concludes that the undesirable effects of adherence to a recommendation probably outweigh the desirable effects, considering the quality of evidence, cost and resource allocation, and values and preferences, but is not confident.

Quality or strength of evidence rating across studies for the treatment/outcome1

High: The subcommittee is very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the

effect. Typical sets of studies are RCTs with few or no limitations and the estimate of effect is

likely stable.

Moderate: The subcommittee is moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely

to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.

Typical sets of studies are RCTs with some limitations or well-performed nonrandomized studies

with additional strengths that guard against potential bias and have large estimates of effects.

Low: The subcommittee’s confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be

substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Typical sets of studies are RCTs with

serious limitations or nonrandomized studies without special strengths.

Very low: The subcommittee has very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely

to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. Typical sets of studies are nonrandomized

studies with serious limitations or inconsistent results across studies.

1 Includes risk of bias, precision, directness, consistency and publication bias


Appendix B. Applicable Codes

CODES DESCRIPTION

ICD-9 Diagnosis Codes

427.31 Atrial fibrillation

ICD-10 Diagnosis Codes

I48.0 Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

I48.1 Persistent atrial fibrillation

I48.2 Chronic atrial fibrillation

I48.91 Unspecified atrial fibrillation

ICD-9 Volume 3 (Procedure Codes)

None

CPT Codes

33250

Operative ablation of supraventricular arrhythmogenic focus or pathway (eg, Wolff-Parkinson-White, atrioventricular node re-entry), tract(s) and/or focus (foci); without cardiopulmonary bypass (For intraoperative pacing and mapping by a separate provider, use 93631) Codes 33254-33256 are only to be reported when there is no concurrently performed procedure that requires median sternotomy or cardiopulmonary bypass.

33251 …with cardiopulmonary bypass

33254 Operative tissue ablation and reconstruction of atria, limited (eg, modified maze procedure)

33255 Operative tissue ablation and reconstruction of atria, extensive (eg, maze procedure); without cardiopulmonary bypass

33256 …with cardiopulmonary bypass

33257 Operative tissue ablation and reconstruction of atria, performed at the time of other cardiac procedure(s), limited (eg, modified maze procedure) (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure)

33258 Operative tissue ablation and reconstruction of atria, performed at the time of other cardiac procedure(s), extensive (eg, maze procedure), without cardiopulmonary bypass (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure)

33259 Operative tissue ablation and reconstruction of atria, performed at the time of other cardiac procedure(s), extensive (eg, maze procedure), with cardiopulmonary bypass (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure)

33261 Operative ablation of ventricular arrhythmogenic focus with cardiopulmonary bypass

33265 Endoscopy, surgical; operative tissue ablation and reconstruction of atria, limited (eg, modified maze procedure), without cardiopulmonary bypass

33266 …operative tissue ablation and reconstruction of atria, extensive (eg, modified maze procedure), without cardiopulmonary bypass

93613 Intracardiac electrophysicologic 3-dimensional mapping (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure)

93650 Intracardiac catheter ablation of atrioventricular node function, atrioventricular

conduction for creation of complete heart block, with or without temporary

pacemaker placement

93653 Comprehensive electrophysiologic evaluation including insertion and repositioning of

multiple electrode catheters with induction or attempted induction of an arrhythmia

with right atrial pacing and recording, right ventricular pacing and recording, His

recording with intracardiac catheter ablation of arrhythmogenic focus; with treatment


CODES DESCRIPTION

of supraventricular tachycardia by ablation of fast or slow atrioventricular pathway,

accessory atrioventricular connection, cavo-tricuspid isthmus or other single atrial

focus or source of atrial re-entry (Do not report 93653 in conjunction with 93600-

93603, 93610, 93612, 93618-93620, 93642, 93654)

93655 Intracardiac catheter ablation of a discrete mechanism of arrhythmia which is distinct

from the primary ablated mechanism, including repeat diagnostic maneuvers, to treat

a spontaneous or induced arrhythmia (List separately in addition to code for primary

procedure) (Use 93655 in conjunction with 93653, 93654, 93656)

93656 Comprehensive electrophysiologic evaluation including transseptal catheterizations,

insertion and repositioning of multiple electrode catheters with induction or attempted

induction of an arrhythmia with atrial recording and pacing, when possible, right

ventricular pacing and recording, His bundle recording with intracardiac catheter

ablation of arrhythmogenic focus, with treatment of atrial fibrillation by ablation by

pulmonary vein isolation

93657 Additional linear or focal intracardiac catheter ablation of the left or right atrium for

treatment of atrial fibrillation remaining after completion of pulmonary vein isolation

(List separately in addition to code for primary procedure)

93799 Unlisted cardiovascular service or procedure

HCPCS Level II Codes

None

Note: Inclusion on this list does not guarantee coverage


Appendix C. HERC Guidance Development Framework

HERC Guidance Development Framework Principles

This framework was developed to assist with the decision making process for the

Oregon policy-making body, the HERC and its subcommittees. It is a general guide, and

must be used in the context of clinical judgment. It is not possible to include all possible

scenarios and factors that may influence a policy decision in a graphic format. While this

framework provides a general structure, factors that may influence decisions that are

not captured on the framework include but are not limited to the following:

Estimate of the level of risk associated with the treatment, or any alternatives;

Which alternatives the treatment should most appropriately be compared to;

Whether there is a discrete and clear diagnosis;

The definition of clinical significance for a particular treatment, and the expected

margin of benefit compared to alternatives;

The relative balance of benefit compared to harm;

The degree of benefit compared to cost; e.g., if the benefit is small and the cost

is large, the committee may make a decision different than the algorithm

suggests;

Specific indications and contraindications that may determine appropriateness;

Expected values and preferences of patients.

Coverage Guidance: Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation Approved 1/8/2015

Ablation of AV node/bundle of His vs. rate control medications

Level of Evidence

Sufficient Insufficient

or mixed

Similar

effectivenessLess

effective

Alternative effective treatment(s)

available/accessible1

No

Treatment risk compared

to no treatment

Similar

or lessUnknown

Treatment is prevalent

NoYes

HERC Guidance Development Framework Decision Point Priorities

1. Level of evidence

2. Effectiveness & alternative

treatments

3. Harms and risk

4. Cost

5. Prevalence of treatment

6. Clinical research study is reasonable

Clinical research

study is reasonable2

NoYes1For diagnostic testing, diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, predictive value) compared to alternative

diagnostic strategies, with clinically important impact on patient management.2Clinical research study is reasonable when failure to perform the procedure in question is not likely to result in

death or serious disability; or in a situation where there is a high risk of death, there is no good clinical evidence to

suggest that the procedure will change that risk.


to alt. treatment(s)

Similar

or moreLess

I II

A B

BA

1 2

1 12 3

a b

i ii

Effectiveness compared to alt. treatment(s)1

(clinically significant improvement in outcomes)

More

effective

Revised 12/05/2013

a b

Ineffective

or harm exceeds

benefit

Effective

No alt. treatment(s)


Ineffective

or harm exceeds

benefit

Refer to HERC Guidance Development Framework Principles for additional considerations

3

1

4 2

a

b

b aa b

i iiiii

Do not

recommend

(weak)

Recommend

(strong)

Do not

recommend

(strong)

Recommend

(weak)

Do not

recommend

(strong)

Do not

recommend

(weak)

Do not

recommend

(strong)Recommend

(strong)

Do not

recommend

(strong)

Do not

recommend

(strong)

Recommend

(strong)

Recommend

(weak)

Do not

recommend

(weak)

Do not

recommend

(strong)

Do not

recommend

(strong)

Do not

recommend

(strong)

Do not

recommend

(weak)

Recommend

(strong)

Cost

Cost

Similar

or less

Similar

or lessMore

More

Treatment risk

compared to

alt. treatment(s)

Treatment risk

compared to

alt. treatment(s)

Treatment risk

compared to alt.

treatment(s)

Similar

Similar or

moreLessMore

Similar

or less

More

Yes

Cost

Similar

or moreLess

Center for Evidence-based Policy

More

2

Do not

recommend

(weak)

Unknown

3

Do not

recommend

(weak)

Less

Recommend

(strong)

c

Coverage Guidance: Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation Approved 1/8/2015

Transcatheter pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) vs. antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD); Surgical ablation (Maze procedure or PVI done

with other cardiac surgery)

Level of Evidence

Sufficient Insufficient

or mixed

Similar

effectivenessLess

effective

Alternative effective treatment(s)


No


to no treatment

Similar

or lessUnknown

Treatment is prevalent

NoYes

HERC Guidance Development Framework Decision Point Priorities

1. Level of evidence

2. Effectiveness & alternative

treatments

3. Harms and risk

4. Cost

5. Prevalence of treatment

6. Clinical research study is reasonable

Clinical research

study is reasonable2

NoYes1For diagnostic testing, diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, predictive value) compared to alternative

diagnostic strategies, with clinically important impact on patient management.2Clinical research study is reasonable when failure to perform the procedure in question is not likely to result in

death or serious disability; or in a situation where there is a high risk of death, there is no good clinical evidence to

suggest that the procedure will change that risk.


to alt. treatment(s)

Similar

or moreLess

I II

A B

BA

1 2

1 12 3

a b

i ii

Effectiveness compared to alt. treatment(s)1

(clinically significant improvement in outcomes)

More

effective

Revised 12/05/2013

a b

Ineffective

or harm exceeds

benefit

Effective

No alt. treatment(s)


Ineffective

or harm exceeds

benefit

Refer to HERC Guidance Development Framework Principles for additional considerations

3

1

4 2

a

b

b aa b

i iiiii

Do not

recommend

(weak)

Recommend

(strong)

Do not

recommend

(strong)

Recommend

(weak)

Do not

recommend

(strong)

Do not

recommend

(weak)

Do not

recommend

(strong)Recommend

(strong)

Do not

recommend

(strong)

Do not

recommend

(strong)

Recommend

(strong)

Recommend

(weak)

Do not

recommend

(weak)

Do not

recommend

(strong)

Do not

recommend

(strong)

Do not

recommend

(strong)

Do not

recommend

(weak)

Recommend

(strong)

Cost

Cost

Similar

or less

Similar

or lessMore

More

Treatment risk

compared to

alt. treatment(s)

Treatment risk

compared to

alt. treatment(s)

Treatment risk

compared to alt.

treatment(s)

Similar

Similar or

moreLessMore

Similar

or less

More

Yes

Cost

Similar

or moreLess

Center for Evidence-based Policy

More

2

Do not

recommend

(weak)

Unknown

3

Do not

recommend

(weak)

Less

Recommend

(strong)

c

health evidence review commission (herc) …...jan 08, 2015 · coverage guidance: ablation for...

Documents